Macs making bigger enterprise gains than rest of PC market

Sales of Macs were way up for business and government segments last quarter …

Apple has not had much of a history with respect to enterprise computing, but an analysis of second quarter sales shows Apple making big gains in business and government sectors. According to Needham analyst Charlie Wolf, sales of Macs to large businesses in particular grew far more than overall sales of PCs in the same timeframe. The specific reasons for the uptick aren't clear, but Apple could sustain the growth with a more proactive enterprise strategy.

In a research note, Needham compared growth in shipments between Macs and the PC market in general in several market segments. Macs grew less than the overall PC market in education—traditionally one of Apple's stronger segments, but one that has sagged recently with tight education budgets leaning in favor of cheaper Windows boxes. In the home market, Mac sales outpaced overall PCs by a slight margin, in line with Apple's consumer focus and the success of its notebooks.

These slight variances seem inconsequential when looking at the business and government markets, though. Mac shipments to businesses grew 50 percent in the second quarter of 2010, beating the overall market growth of 16 percent. Sales to government organizations were up a whopping 200 percent, 16 times the overall market growth of 12 percent.

Breaking down the business segment further, Needham noted that Mac growth among smaller-sized businesses—somewhere Apple has typically done well—is outpacing the rest of the industry by a factor of three to four. However, Mac growth in "large" and "very large" businesses—the traditional Windows stronghold—is around 100 percent, while the rest of the industry grew about 20 percent in these same segments.

It's hard to say what factors contribute to such growth, as Apple has historically not made the enterprise a priority in its product mix, sales efforts, or service areas. Recent low-end iMacs and compact Mac minis may be tempting IT departments with a lower TCO. Apple's adoption of Intel processors has also made dual-booting or virtualizing Windows a viable option when critical applications can't be replaced with a Mac OS X equivalent. And the rise of Web-based applications—increasingly being built using modern, cross-platform standards—makes choosing between platforms less of a factor when choosing computers for enterprise use.

Another factor may be a sort of enterprise halo effect caused by the iPhone. While the iPod seemed to put Apple's computers in the minds of consumers, the iPhone may be having a similar effect in the enterprise. As more business users adopt the iPhone as an all-in-one mobile device for business and personal use, they may be requesting an Apple desktop or laptop for use at work as well, a request that "consumerized" IT departments may be more inclined to go along with.

With Apple so intensely focused on the consumer market, it doesn't offer the same kind of appeal to traditional enterprise infrastructure. Still, these results for the second quarter show that there is interest in Apple products in the business sector. Perhaps the time is right for Apple to leverage the renewed attention it's getting and be a bit more proactive about targeting the enterprise.

156 Reader Comments

I have a number of clients that the executives / owners decided to buy Macs. Ironically, they won't buy them for their employees because they cost so much more than PCs. I have had to install Parallels or VMware on every single Mac and Windows 7 with the business applications they use. All of them run Windows on their Macs all day and rarely use Mac OS making them very expensive "cool" Windows PCs. Go figure...

If you installed Fusion or Parallels then they are still running OS X.

Now, if you'd said "Bootcamp"...

I did not state if Bootcamp was being used. It can be you know with both products. However, the point I was trying to make was they are not utilizing Mac OS and it's applications directly. Just as a host for Windows.

It's easy to make relatively large gains when your current market penetration is laughably low.

Yes, when Mac market share articles stop using percentages and start using real unit sales numbers, at that point the numbers will mean something. I mean, if I'm Apple and I sold 1 computer into the "very large business" sector last quarter, and this quarter I sold 2 machines into the same group, I've increased my sales volume in that group by a "whopping" 100%. In terms of volume, though, I've done very poorly this quarter. OTOH, if I'm HP and last quarter I sold 5,000,000 machines into the "very large business" sector, and this quarter I sold 6,000,000 machines into that sector, then in terms of percentage my share of this market has increased by "only" 20%. Obviously, in this example, HP's 20% increase in market share is worth inestimably more than the 100% increase in market share reported by Apple for the same period. So, then, we can not only conclude that market-share increases related only in percentages are completely useless as information, but we can also conclude that the only reason to use percentages instead of real numbers of sales is to create deceptive impressions.

IMO, the only reason for any author to use only percentages to describe market share increases is to hide the actual volume of unit sales that took place.

Perhaps I am myopic, but IT people I know care about doing a good job and their mental health depends on things going smoothly. Also, last I heard we had an economic problem or something. A homogeneous IT environment makes a lot of things a lot easier.

I really don't see much more of an argument for Macs than "I like them more."

We are poor and understaffed but well managed here. Better security? What security problems? Faster? Uh, than what equivalently priced PC? Better productivity? So you can surf eBay faster? Or are you going to tell me that Office runs better on Mac?

When people here ask me when we are getting macs, I ask why. So far no one has given me a legitimate reason and no one has been able to say, "I just like them better."

I have always worked in mixed environments. Mac make my job a lot less stressful as there are fewer support calls on them. It is the Windows machines that give me headaches, between the viruses/spyware, the hardware, and Windows XP's pathetic lack of security (and no we can't change to Windows 7 yet, too much software would have to be changed). I find working with them a waste of time, fixes take twice as long, drivers sucks, even from the major manufacturers, I just loath dealing with them. At a job where I supported both (instead of mostly Mac) I would get 5 - 10 support calls a day for Windows for everyone 1 for Mac, and this was in an evenly split environment. IT's job it to support it's users/customers, and we all know it is an ever changing landscape, so get with it or get out.

LOL riiiight. I love the spin, its as masterfully done as any politician could do. Because we all know that most organizations do upgrades in cycles (Traditionally 3 years, but because of the economy its been longer this time around.) and we are about to hit another one in in fall of 2010 into 2011. I know for a fact that 3 of the fortune 500 companies I support are about to roll out all new hardware along with Windows 7 this fall. Maybe that is why Apple's is doing better. Smaller companies are much more random and as such those gaps between PC upgrade cycles make Apple look more impressive. Geesh. No midrange organization or large will EVER go Mac. Your TCO is a smokescreen when you realize what management tools you have on a Windows box vs Mac. When you realize what warranty services are available for most PC manufacturers vs a Mac. When you consider software costs. (Read: integrating OS X natively in a purely Windows environment (Read running Windows apps on a Mac oops more Windows licenses needed.), or going Windows on Mac, which makes less sense then just buying a Windows Box. Then you have slick tools like Intel vPro that allows huge amounts of remote management...on a Mac? Nope.Sorry this tired argument is tired. Apple's bread and butter will always be the home user. The rapid pace they drop out new OS's, and then discontinue support in 3-4 years is nothing short of insane for the enterprise. Home users yes. You can do that. Enterprise? Why do you think when its all said and done XP will have been supported for 20 years.Any CEO who knows ANYTHING would run screaming after a cost analysis of migrating their company purely to Mac, and then maintaining it over a 3+ year period. And even a partial migration is insane. Mixed environments suck.

Well said, and I agree.

We have enough cost problems trying to maintain a small Mac environment and a few X Serves (which are probably the crappiest servers I've ever had to deal with).

Then you don't know how to administrate an Xserve. They take care of themselves. We still have a G5 Xserve running and and it doesn't give us a lick of problems. Our new server is a beast which streams video, and gives those group policy type things (that you claim Mac's can't have) to our labs. It is obvious none of you knew how to properly run an Xserve for Workgroup Management and even AD login.

They can never win in the enterprise market -- thus the wisest course is to stick to pads, pods and phones.

But couldn't just growing its enterprise marketshare be considered a "win?" Does Apple have to have a 90% marketshare in the enterprise to "win?"

On the contrary, getting a 90% market share would be disasterous for Apple. They tie products together more and have far more restrictions on using their APIs than Microsoft ever had. If Apple ever becomes dominant enough in a market that they have to worry about anti-trust regulations, their business model becomes illegal. They can't afford to gain too much market share. Nor have they needed to dominate in order to reap tremendous profits.

If Apple's products start to become too dominant, they need to raise their prices a bit to maintain their high end market placement.

Microsoft's biggest problem is that they became too dominant. It may have helped drive us technologically forward to have a single dominant OS that most everyone was familiar with, but we punished Microsoft for giving it to us. Windows became so dominant it started to some extent be considered public porperty. Microsoft lost the right to determine which interfaces would be exposed to developers and to maintain control over the look and feel of the OS. If you think Bill Gates behaved badly during the anti-trust suit, how do you think Steve Jobs would react if creative control and the ability to tie products together were taken away from him by the government.

If you think Bill Gates behaved badly during the anti-trust suit, how do you think Steve Jobs would react if creative control and the ability to tie products together were taken away from him by the government.

... or by corporation customers, or by the court of public opinion for that matter.

If history is any guide, Apple will abandon potential/existing corporate business if it feels the business requirements are hindering its product evolution.

I manage an IT department in a manufacturing company that uses almost exclusively macs. Their enterprise support is not good at all. I believe this is a pretty common belief amongst the admins on the more active mailing lists regarding mac os x.

They have a long way to come and seem to have been dropping enterprise support even more in the last couple years. For example, in their final update to their RAID admin (for the xraid) they cut support for LUN masking, they have no real package management software (both fink and ports are not great) and I have had much trouble compiling things to get them to work. I wish they would support open source software to the same degree they have benefitted from using it as a base for their software.

Sounds like my experience at my Uni when I was a student employee. The "Mac" group was about the size of the Windows group, even though we only had a few hundred Macs on campus but we had near 8000 Windows Machines.

The Macs were horrible to remote manage and setup network policies. Because of our political ties with Apple, we had an OS developer from Apple that we could call to actually write patches for us to fix issues and help us debug. By the time Win-XP SP2 was standard on campus, the OSX machines were crashing every few weeks and our Windows machines almost never crashed except on hardware failure.

Several of the core Mac group had their own custom Linux machines. They were smooth with Linux, but they hated OSX.

We came to realize that OSX machines that didn't have to be managed by network policies were fine and had no issues, but if you wanted to remote manage Macs, you were in for a world of hurt.

A user also doesn't have to explain why they like something is better in order to prove that it is better (a logical fallacy committed by many posters above). One user switching might be attributed to irrational whimsy. A mass exodus of windows users to macs reveals a real problem with the old platform. It's up to the IT people to figure out why, not the users.

When their current workstation is likely 4 or 5 years old and still running XP, of course people are going to exodus to a shiny new Mac if the company is footing the bill. That says nothing about how an new Mac would compare functionally or cost-wise to a comparable new Windows 7 machine.

Bottom line is that corporations-enterprise are realizing that lowest bid is different in 2010 than in 2000, no longer are you just buying efficeiently but that lowest bid PC is really the lowest bid in terms of component quality. In other words, you get what you pay for - smart IT is now looking at TCO and Macs are always priced lower in the long run. That's not to say that all departments are entitled to Macs but just as the cheapest company car is not for everyone, it's a smarter decision now. MIssion critical departments might qualify for Macs - much less downtime while your assistant marketing manager will get a WIN PC. That's all this is - smarter decision making means that lowest bid means a power component made in Myanmar while Macs are built with quality components - you get what you pay for - for some employees, they get a WIN PC and a standard cube - others might get an office and a choice.

How exactly is this true? In fact I am finding it hard to find but a small handful of cases where that Mac is cheaper TCO especially at the mid size and enterprise level. The cost of business software tends to be higher on the Mac especially the most used tools like Office. Both will require security software despite the legends of the impossible to attack Mac espeically when most new attacks come from 3rd party products like flash. Honestly only an idiot would trust trade secrets and customer lists on obscurity and history. It will cost more to hire and/or train IT staff with an expertise in Apple products at the enterprise level as there just is not as many of these cats around. You will have to buy new 3rd party tools on the back end to get everything working together.

Now to the end user. The vast majority have never used OSX so will need to be trained. Right now in companies that have a mixed environment or allow choice this cost really is not there as they expect that if you chose OSX you know what you are doing so help desk calls are less as these people can trouble shoot and fix problems on their own but once this hits new users this will flip and there will be more calls to help desk.

On quality of HW. I will for the point of argument agree that Macbook pros are of higher quality than run of the mill window boxes. With that said they still break down. And spending the equivalent money on Windows boxes will tend to give you similar quality levels. But what is really important is the cheapest Macbook Pro costs 1500 with service agreement while you can find a Dell or HP laptop with service agreement that does the work needed for 80 plus percent of the work force for 800 to 1200 dollars which means just on hardware the Mac has to outlast 5 Windows boxes to break even.

As others have said if the reason to get an Apple is personal preference or its the best tool for the job that is a valid argument. The rest of the arguments really do not pass the smell test though.

"Recent low-end iMacs and compact Mac minis may be tempting IT departments with a lower TCO. Apple's adoption of Intel processors has also made dual-booting or virtualizing Windows a viable option when critical applications can't be replaced with a Mac OS X equivalent. And the rise of Web-based applications—increasingly being built using modern, cross-platform standards—makes choosing between platforms less of a factor when choosing computers for enterprise use."

It saves your TCO to buy Mac Mini and use it for running your corporate legacy apps that require Internet Explorer 6.0 or Windows 3.11 for Workgroups

"Recent low-end iMacs and compact Mac minis may be tempting IT departments with a lower TCO. Apple's adoption of Intel processors has also made dual-booting or virtualizing Windows a viable option when critical applications can't be replaced with a Mac OS X equivalent. And the rise of Web-based applications—increasingly being built using modern, cross-platform standards—makes choosing between platforms less of a factor when choosing computers for enterprise use."

It saves your TCO to buy Mac Mini and use it for running your corporate legacy apps that require Internet Explorer 6.0 or Windows 3.11 for Workgroups

Wait, so buying a more expensive (or best-case same cost) computer saves you money because you have to buy 2 OSs, software for two OSs and support it all. This doesn't sounds like reduced cost, it sounds like the worst of both worlds.

Wait, so buying a more expensive (or best-case same cost) computer saves you money because you have to buy 2 OSs, software for two OSs and support it all. This doesn't sounds like reduced cost, it sounds like the worst of both worlds.

Honestly there is some merit to the idea for some users, but the thought of running Norton AV for Windows in a VM on OS X makes me want to puke.

"Any CEO who listens to what people want and realises that staff productivity, happiness and adaptability is worth far, far more than any IT infrastructure cost will eat your CEO's lunch."

And a lot of similar comments amounting to, basically, if people want a particular kind of computer, in this case a Mac, give it to them. Wrong, completely wrong, 180 degrees wrong.

Actually you misquoted, it was me, and for reasons not limited to the above (staff retention, requires less support, etc. etc.) it is you who are wrong.

Quote:

The problem with going over wholly to Apple for your desktops is that you are now at their mercy for hardware.

The problem with going over wholly to Windows is that you are at their mercy for software. Works both ways!

Quote:

Prima donnas who think Photoshop or Office somehow runs more productively on a Mac, and are prepared to make a fuss about it, are the kind of employees you do not want.

IT people who say "this is what I know, I will not learn more, and I will not disturb MY nice network by putting Macs on it" are what you do not want. Believe it or not those who want to do things differently are the ones you DO want. If you look at huge companies like Intel they go so far as to codify and encourage "values" like "risk taking".

Quote:

The same approach by the way should be taken to oscilloscopes, excavation tools, drill presses, desk and cubicle manufacturers. Take personal preferences and any cult enthusiasms you have home, and leave them there.

If facilities goes and refits the office without doing any consultation, they were wrong. And that contributes to people leaving for greener pastures. Likewise anyone who drops an oscilloscope on an engineer's desk without asking what kind they needed. And so on and so forth.

Quote:

In one European company for whom I consulted, the policy was, all company cars will be diesel, and they will all be dark blue or light grey.

That's a dumb company. Diesel I might begin to understand on economic grounds. Mandating color? Just stupid. Especially picking those colors that are among the least visible, if you think about safety.

Quote:

What companies need to do is get rid of the whole Apple fanaticism totally, because it is basically an individual asserting that he/she will only do the work he or she is being paid for on certain tools, and the only way to eliminate this stupidity is to ban them, and to ban the fanatics as well.

[/quote]

Exactly right! So goodbye to those "IT professionals" who refuse to support what users want to use - those people doing the job being in the best position to say what does the job best.

The company I work for (several thousand workers world wide, not a startup, not "creative" whatever that means) allows you to choose what OS you're most comfortable working with, as long as you take your Mac to the Apple store, rather than IT, if you have problems.

I just took a walk around the office - out of twenty five people, only three developers and the three sales and biz-dev people are working solely on Windows machines (the developers are writing Windows software, clients of our server code). The rest of us are either exclusively Mac (like me, with VMs for when I need Windows or Linux) or have a Mac and a Windows and/or Linux machine. We're writing server code that is run on Linux, and can be developed on any OS, but given the choice most of us have chosen Macs.

Don't your company have any IP (as in intellectual property) that it needs to protect? WHat do you do when you go with your laptop to genius bar? Replace the hard drive temporarily?

A user also doesn't have to explain why they like something is better in order to prove that it is better (a logical fallacy committed by many posters above). One user switching might be attributed to irrational whimsy. A mass exodus of windows users to macs reveals a real problem with the old platform. It's up to the IT people to figure out why, not the users.

Of course he does not... as long as he or she pays his own money. And what exodus exactly are you talking about? Mac share worldwide was and remains at 4+ %. hardly an exodus. Not even a drip.

While I understand why technically challenged individuals may want to use Macs (influenced by the flood of Apple TV advertising), I do not really see why any company would do it. Very limited selection of hardware optimized primarily for college students. Those here arguing about quality of Apple hardware simply have no idea about what Lenovo, Dell and HP offer for business customers. Their offerings are way better than Macs. Not to mention on site repairs (within 24 hours).

They can never win in the enterprise market -- thus the wisest course is to stick to pads, pods and phones.

They don't need to "win" the enterprise market. Their goal is to keep making products and services and grow the company. If they gain marketshare in the enterprise sector, even a small part, that is a win if the other goals are met.

If I was running a business, I would provide Macs to everyone who wanted them and could use them efficiently for their jobs. They are far less hassle than PCs, and people's time at work is far too valuable to be messing around with computers.

"The problem with going over wholly to Windows is that you are at their mercy for software. Works both ways!"

This is exactly why the Apple and Macintosh sickness has to be dealt with firmly: because you find people offering, and really believing, intellectual contortions like this.

Lets go over it carefully. You swing your company over to Apple, you are now locked into one and only one vendor for both OS and hardware. There is no question about this. As a business, you are not going to Hackintosh.

You go with Windows, you are stuck with MS for the OS, and that is perhaps comparable to being stuck with Apple for the OS in the case of OSX. The difference is what else you are stuck with, in the case of Apple. Windows, you can buy your hardware from whoever you want, and there are lots and lots of suppliers all competing for your business. You may get a good deal from Apple to switch. On the next purchase, they have you over a barrel. For hardware. Now, does MS have you over a barrel? Yes, for Windows and Office. They also have you over a barrel for Office, regardless if its OSX or Windows.

But you can take your hardware from Dell to HP to Asus tomorrow, and not even notice from a support and operational point of view. And you are going to be renewing your hardware every three or four years. So it matters. What happens if, as in the past, Apple has supply problems? What happens if it changes its hardware line in ways you don't like? What happens if you find that what you want is not in its particular and rather restricted product range? You are not satifisfied with a choice between the Mini, the all-in-ones, and the incredibly expensive and weirdly configured floorstanders? What happens if you don't feel like swapping out perfectly good monitors in order to upgrade your base unit?

There is a huge difference, being stuck with one vendor for OS and hardware, versus being stuck with one OS you have chosen, but as a result of this choice, free to choose the hardware vendor of your choice.

Other people on this thread talk about how the user knows best and should be left free. No, this is quite wrong. The line to take is that users who insist on using Photoshop on Mac rather than on Windows, when company policy is to use Windows, should get another job.

Make clear to everyone what the rules are at the hiring interview, and enforce them, and screen out prima donnas. The company will be a more task oriented, pleasant and productive place if you get rid of them. Obsessive devotions to particular suppliers, whether of computers, phones, or drill motors, have no place in business. You want task oriented people who will do the best they can with the tools provided, and don't complain.

As to the company with its car policy, the answer was the same, it was not stupid or sensible, it was just policy. It may have had financial reasons, but it had one important side benefit: people whose work focus was the brand or color of the car they drove to work in, did not work there, and they were better off without them.

You have to ask the question: what is wrong with these people, that what they are running Photoshop on is so important to them? Obsession, that's what. The problem is not with IT, or the companies, the problem is with people who have inappropriate personal obsessions and bring them into the workplace.

The line to take on these matters is, we do not care how you feel about Apple or MS or Dell. Or DeWalt. If you care enough that it gets in the way of doing your job, take your cares elsewhere.

Other people on this thread talk about how the user knows best and should be left free. No, this is quite wrong. The line to take is that users who insist on using Photoshop on Mac rather than on Windows, when company policy is to use Windows, should get another job.

I can't help but agree. These folks who want different hardware on their desk, different software, whatever. Well. Let them make the dollars-and-cents case proving doing so creates a gain for the company, rather than a gain for their special snowflake selves.

Most IT houses resist Macs not because they don't like them, but because it involves a significant increase in TCO or loss of support.

I have one client that has anyone using a Mac, and they know they're on their own. Their business refuses to front the cost for their 'personal preference' even though this is for the number 2 person in the group.

As someone else said, percent increases with such a massive disparity in actual numbers mean very little. They aren't comparable, and there's a good reason for that.

Macs are not ready for the enterprise. Apple hasn't done anything to make them ready, and doesn't appear to have any plans to do so. Macs in a business can require massive reworking of business processes, and general headaches for any established company who already has a windows-based enterprise structure.

Sure, if you're new or you've already moved all your workplace tools to web-only systems, you can do the Mac change. Otherwise, you're needlessly increasing costs for little gain. The Mac users either have to run windows on their Mac, run everything in a virtual/rdp session, or go without services, all so they can spend more on their equipment and get less support.

It is MORONIC.

If you look at the adoption of the iPhone in the business, it only really took off once enterprise support began (read activesync). Otherwise it was a niche of people who just wanted another cool toy (which is how most Mac users are viewed).

The days of the Mac being better at anything are over; they run on a commodity product, their browser isn't as good as some freely available browsers, they don't interface with domain archetecture so they cause a large increase it IT budgets (not just purchasing budgets) and they don't support most legacy business applications. That's a recipe for failure that's not going away. It's no wonder Apple doesn't even try, they're too far behind the curve.

This is yet another making mountains out of ant-hills news item. The Mac is going nowhere fast, just like it always has, and enthusiasm about that small tic of upward climb isn't going to change anything.

"The problem with going over wholly to Windows is that you are at their mercy for software. Works both ways!"

This is exactly why the Apple and Macintosh sickness has to be dealt with firmly: because you find people offering, and really believing, intellectual contortions like this.

Lets go over it carefully. You swing your company over to Apple, you are now locked into one and only one vendor for both OS and hardware. There is no question about this. As a business, you are not going to Hackintosh.

No, no hackintoshes. On a Mac you can run Mac OS X, true. You can run Windows XP or Vista or 7. You can run a huge range of tools and utilities written for Unix systems (Mac OS X is POSIX). In fact you have more software choice not less.

Quote:

Other people on this thread talk about how the user knows best and should be left free. No, this is quite wrong. The line to take is that users who insist on using Photoshop on Mac rather than on Windows, when company policy is to use Windows, should get another job.

Make clear to everyone what the rules are at the hiring interview, and enforce them, and screen out prima donnas. The company will be a more task oriented, pleasant and productive place if you get rid of them. Obsessive devotions to particular suppliers, whether of computers, phones, or drill motors, have no place in business. You want task oriented people who will do the best they can with the tools provided, and don't complain.

Based on the false assumption that all tools are equal. But hold on a moment... "locked in" to one kind of phone, or drill motor? Surely you forgot the perils of that, you just described them in relation to computers. Prima donnas can go but control freaks should go with them. Obsessive devotions to particular suppliers, whether of computers, phones, or drill motors, have no place in business, so your business must resist a one-tool-fits-all policy, it is a clear indication of lazy people in charge of infrastructure.

Quote:

As to the company with its car policy, the answer was the same, it was not stupid or sensible, it was just policy. It may have had financial reasons, but it had one important side benefit: people whose work focus was the brand or color of the car they drove to work in, did not work there, and they were better off without them.

You have to ask the question: what is wrong with these people, that what they are running Photoshop on is so important to them? Obsession, that's what. The problem is not with IT, or the companies, the problem is with people who have inappropriate personal obsessions and bring them into the workplace.

Mostly I have to ask what is wrong with the people frightened to have colleagues who wish to drive interesting cars. But you're giving yourself away here, it is getting a little too unbelievable.

Quote:

The line to take on these matters is, we do not care how you feel about Apple or MS or Dell. Or DeWalt. If you care enough that it gets in the way of doing your job, take your cares elsewhere.

I would hope such a company would be up front about their need to control everything, I'd never want a job there. If it somehow happened I'm sure I would quit before completing the reading of their manual concerning the proper making of tea and the correct procedure for dunking a biscuit.

I would hope such a company would be up front about their need to control everything, I'd never want a job there. If it somehow happened I'm sure I would quit before completing the reading of their manual concerning the proper making of tea and the correct procedure for dunking a biscuit.

Lay off the absurdity, aeberbach. There is a world of difference between a company deciding what tools it will provide to its paid workers, and telling them how to make and consume their own food or "controlling everything."

The line to take on these matters is, we do not care how you feel about Apple or MS or Dell. Or DeWalt. If you care enough that it gets in the way of doing your job, take your cares elsewhere.

I would hope such a company would be up front about their need to control everything, I'd never want a job there. If it somehow happened I'm sure I would quit before completing the reading of their manual concerning the proper making of tea and the correct procedure for dunking a biscuit.

You can't seriously believe that most applicants for jobs honestly think they will get to work with whatever tools they'd like. I'd wager that >90% of job applicants go in fully expecting to work with whatever tools they're given by their future employer.

Let's turn this around: if you care so fscking much about what kind of workstation you do your work on, ask them in advance during your interview. In all other cases, let common sense prevail. And if, in the future during your employment, you spot chances for big improvements by switching to another platform, feel free to indicate this to your boss and submit a request to investigate these options.

More and more employees (some senior enough to have some influence) see good reasons for bringing in Macs (productivity, preference, security, whatever) and in the end it's IT's job to service the business, not to dictate it.

Of the reasons you listed, only preference has any weight. Productivity is a wash (and In reality should be far higher on a windows machine, as the interface should be far more recognizable to the vast majority of users). As far as security goes, by far the biggest security threat in an enterprise environment is a socially engineered attack on the user (ie. Hi, this is Tim from the Tulsa office, can you tell me what your password is?). The mac offers no benefit in this space.

As for the real job of IT, it is to evaluate the Total Cost of Ownership of any particular solution and procure and service the most economical tool that will accomplish the required job. In very few cases is that tool actually anything made by apple. In other words, your ditch diggers may want a thirty dollar shovel, but if a twenty dollar shovel will do the same work and save the company money, you get the twenty dollar shovel for everyone.

The military has been advised of the need to move to mixed environments for security purposes if for no other reason.

I'm not sure I understand that, actually (independent of what OS you use). If you use one operating system, you have one operating system to secure. If you use seven of them, you have seven times as much work to do to secure your systems.

If you mean for redundancy in the face of security threats, then I can see it. If you have machines evenly distrubuted between a hypothetical seven OSs, any attack designed to nuke a given OS could only take out 14% of your machines. Is that the idea?

Diversity more than redundancy but that's even better I would think. Pretty humorous that they're now just fessing up to their breach.

I wish someone on here would explain the "PC's when properly managed" are secure idea. I switched to a Mac when OSX came out because I was sick to death of having to manage my computer. Sadly, I left the business in the hands of others when I retired and I'm thinking they're still running exchange. Anyway...,I'm at eight + years and counting being free of Norton, Symantec, et. al. with nary an issue. I'm at a total loss trying to understand why any "joe consumer" would run Windows at home knowing what a security risk it is. Don't they shop on the internet etc.? I really don't get it.

I wish someone on here would explain the "PC's when properly managed" are secure idea. I switched to a Mac when OSX came out because I was sick to death of having to manage my computer.

I'll answer that question in earnest. Not because I want an argument but because you seemed to be asking sincerely.

The basic truth is, a significant number of computer users are not very good at deciding which executables to trust. And there are a number of blackhat attackers who will take advantage of this user naivete by writing malicious executables (malware) and in some way enticing people to run them.

So managing PCs from a security point of view boils down to two basic goals: one, prevent users from running malware on their systems. And two, (as a sort of backup to number one), periodically check the machines for untrustworthy executables anyway, and if such are found, quarantine them and notify a qualified person to take further action if necessary. I won't bore you with the various strategies for accomplishing these goals.

Apple has so far avoided the need for very much of this by simply not attracting very many blackhat attackers. Compared to the Windows world, there is very little malware in the Mac world. The common theory is that while the Mac world remains small compared to the Windows world, few attackers will care to craft malware for Macs because they perceive little reward for their efforts. While this seems true today, there is no guarantee that it will always seem so. And there is little evidence that OSX, subjected to the number and variety of attacks found in the Windows world, would fare any better than Windows has.

I wish someone on here would explain the "PC's when properly managed" are secure idea. I switched to a Mac when OSX came out because I was sick to death of having to manage my computer.

I'll answer that question in earnest. Not because I want an argument but because you seemed to be asking sincerely.

The basic truth is, a significant number of computer users are not very good at deciding which executables to trust. And there are a number of blackhat attackers who will take advantage of this user naivete by writing malicious executables (malware) and in some way enticing people to run them.

So managing PCs from a security point of view boils down to two basic goals: one, prevent users from running malware on their systems. And two, (as a sort of backup to number one), periodically check the machines for untrustworthy executables anyway, and if such are found, quarantine them and notify a qualified person to take further action if necessary. I won't bore you with the various strategies for accomplishing these goals.

Apple has so far avoided the need for very much of this by simply not attracting very many blackhat attackers. Compared to the Windows world, there is very little malware in the Mac world. The common theory is that while the Mac world remains small compared to the Windows world, few attackers will care to craft malware for Macs because they perceive little reward for their efforts. While this seems true today, there is no guarantee that it will always seem so. And there is little evidence that OSX, subjected to the number and variety of attacks found in the Windows world, would fare any better than Windows has.

Thanks for the reply and no I'm not looking for an argument either. All of the research I did when I was deciding to switch suggested that Unix was considerably more secure out of the box then windows. Had ubuntu existed at that time I may have looked more closely at Linux as an alternative to Apple but I guessed that the development of Next (osx) would more closely parallel what I was interested in than the open source movement. I do believe the "And there is little evidence that OSX, subjected to the number and variety of attacks found in the Windows world, would fare any better than Windows has" is fud but can't come close to being able to dispel it with my limited knowledge. Anyway, thanks again for your considered response.

You can't seriously believe that most applicants for jobs honestly think they will get to work with whatever tools they'd like. I'd wager that >90% of job applicants go in fully expecting to work with whatever tools they're given by their future employer.

Let's turn this around: if you care so fscking much about what kind of workstation you do your work on, ask them in advance during your interview. In all other cases, let common sense prevail. And if, in the future during your employment, you spot chances for big improvements by switching to another platform, feel free to indicate this to your boss and submit a request to investigate these options.

Having a Mac for an employee and supporting it is a cost of business. But does the company want to pay that cost? So, getting a Mac for an employee in a Windows shop imo depends upon how valuable the employee is to that company. If the employee wants a Mac and is bringing in millions of dollars of business and can't easily be replaced, then the cost of a Mac is small compared to the benefit.

But I agree that this applies to less than 90% of employees and businesses (including the one I work for). Most workers can be replaced and the cost of a mixed enviornment (Windows and Mac) is either not worth it or is impossible due to government mandates.

(BTW; I have 2 Macs and a Windows laptop at home so, there is no personal bias here.)

The line to take on these matters is, we do not care how you feel about Apple or MS or Dell. Or DeWalt. If you care enough that it gets in the way of doing your job, take your cares elsewhere.

I would hope such a company would be up front about their need to control everything, I'd never want a job there. If it somehow happened I'm sure I would quit before completing the reading of their manual concerning the proper making of tea and the correct procedure for dunking a biscuit.

You can't seriously believe that most applicants for jobs honestly think they will get to work with whatever tools they'd like. I'd wager that >90% of job applicants go in fully expecting to work with whatever tools they're given by their future employer.

Let's turn this around: if you care so fscking much about what kind of workstation you do your work on, ask them in advance during your interview. In all other cases, let common sense prevail. And if, in the future during your employment, you spot chances for big improvements by switching to another platform, feel free to indicate this to your boss and submit a request to investigate these options.

What I expect is to know what the job is and as the domain expert to have input into the processes that best achieve it. Having to use X because "it's policy" is certainly unacceptable to me. If you run that kind of company you might make money but you'll never be a leader. The best companies define the job and let good people achieve results. The IT people in those great companies believe the "support" part of their job is primary. The worst write detailed instructions for everything and only retain people barely capable of following them. The IT people in those companies lock down everything - because their own procedures manuals tell them they must.

Finally - arguing against choice on one hand (software platform, tool suppliers) and for choice (PC vendor) can't be reconciled.

What I expect is to know what the job is and as the domain expert to have input into the processes that best achieve it. Having to use X because "it's policy" is certainly unacceptable to me. If you run that kind of company you might make money but you'll never be a leader. The best companies define the job and let good people achieve results. The IT people in those great companies believe the "support" part of their job is primary. The worst write detailed instructions for everything and only retain people barely capable of following them. The IT people in those companies lock down everything - because their own procedures manuals tell them they must.

If only it were so easy to hire a company full of well adjusted geniuses. Ones who know that never making a compromise on anything is the best policy for working together with others. And at a company with unlimited resources to cater to every need of this uber-labor force. I smell world-domination!!!1 mwhahahaha.

But seriously, you have to see that your idea only fits a very small portion of the labor market. Any big company is going to have to have the IT dept set (some) policy for practical and legal reasons. That might even include instructions. Detailed at that. That's obvious, right?

What I expect is to know what the job is and as the domain expert to have input into the processes that best achieve it. Having to use X because "it's policy" is certainly unacceptable to me. If you run that kind of company you might make money but you'll never be a leader. The best companies define the job and let good people achieve results. The IT people in those great companies believe the "support" part of their job is primary. The worst write detailed instructions for everything and only retain people barely capable of following them. The IT people in those companies lock down everything - because their own procedures manuals tell them they must.

If only it were so easy to hire a company full of well adjusted geniuses. Ones who know that never making a compromise on anything is the best policy for working together with others. And at a company with unlimited resources to cater to every need of this uber-labor force. I smell world-domination!!!1 mwhahahaha.

But seriously, you have to see that your idea only fits a very small portion of the labor market. Any big company is going to have to have the IT dept set (some) policy for practical and legal reasons. That might even include instructions. Detailed at that. That's obvious, right?

I question "very small" but no it is not for everybody. Without those "other" companies, life's lance corporals and other jobsworths would never find happiness in an IT department and plenty of people do require instructions. But the discussion was more about "Macs can't work in enterprise". They can, as long as you have people worth a damn. Google is not a small company yet manages a mixed IT fleet pretty happily - ask dhaveconfig.

Really? I thought I was arguing that Macs can be fine in the Enterprise, but that including them in an efficiently managed, homogeneous environment can be much more trouble than it's worth. Based on the assumption that you would want to manage the new Macs in a similarly efficient manner.